Rubbish collection vehicles (RCVs) with rear loading are the subject of European standard EN 1501-1 (2011) “Refuse collection vehicles—General requirements and safety requirements—Part 1: Rear loaded refuse collection vehicles.”
In general, RCVs are based on a standard chassis-cab, whereon is adapted the superstructure including the caisson provided with a mechanism for compacting rubbish. These chassis-cabs are often designed for a substantial gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), for example from 12 to 26 tons; knowing that each emptying of the RCV interrupts the collection circuit, it is always sought to increase the capacity of the RCV and its GVWR in order to decrease the frequency of the emptying, while still ensuring the navigability of the RCV in the streets in which the collection is carried out.
Many mechanisms for compacting for such vehicles are known.
European Patent Publication No. EP 0514355 B1 (Farid Industrie) describes a device with a mobile plate fixed to a telescopic device that compacts the rubbish in a vehicle; this compacting is low. European Patent Publication No. EP 0637555 B1 (Valle Teiro Eurotec) describes an articulated compacting scoop of which the displacement is provided by a hydraulic cylinder and connecting rod system. Patent application French Patent Publication No. FR 2945284 A1 (Gillard) describes another system for compacting with an articulated scoop.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,076,159 and European Patent Publication No. EP 0463189 B1 (Valle Teiro) describe articulated compacting scoops on arms mounted rigidly or slidingly on a mobile carrier. European Patent Publication No. EP 0659659 A1 (CEB Costruzioni Ecologiche Bergomi) describes a compacting scoop which is displaced over a cylinder and of which the length can by adjusted by cylinder. This system is flexible and mobile but heavy.
From European Patent Publication No. EP 2366639 A1 (Tecme) is known a caisson with a compaction device comprising an articulated scoop and moved by a mechanism comprising a connecting rod. The articulated scoop comprises an upper scoop pivotably mounted on the caisson about a first right-left axis and having an upper face for milling rubbish, and a lower scoop pivotably mounted on the upper scoop about a second right-left axis, and having a lower face for milling rubbish. In the deployed position, the faces for milling face a front apron, said front apron being mounted slidingly on the caisson and intended to be displaced at the rear in order to move closer to the lower and upper scoops, when the latter are in deployed position, in order to compact the rubbish by pressing it against the milling surface of the scoop. Moreover, during the emptying of the caisson, the rear apron is used as a gland to effectively remove the rubbish through the rear despite the substantial change in slope (of about 40°) provided at the rear of the bottom of the caisson. The presence of the rear apron has the disadvantage of adding substantial weight to the caisson.
European Patent Publication No. EP 2384999 A1 (Novarini) describes a frame provided with an articulated scoop with cylinders, mounted on a carrier intended to be moved in a forwards-backwards direction relative to the caisson. The compaction of the rubbish is done between the thrust surfaces of the deployed upper and lower scoops and the front wall of the frame. The frame is a caisson of a rubbish collection vehicle.
However, as the angle of rotation of the upper scoop is very low, the upper scoop does not contribute to the compacting of the rubbish, but is substantially used to put the lower portion of the scoop into compacting position. It is, therefore, the lower scoop which is sized to carry out the compacting. As such, the lower scoop is of substantial dimensions, as well as the cylinders actuating it. The ensemble therefore has a substantial weight.
The applicant has found that the compacting systems according to prior art are not optimized for small-size RCVs. Indeed, next to large-size RCVs, there is a real need for RCVs with a more reduced size. This need exists in particular for small municipalities, or in municipalities that have narrow and/or sloped streets, for example in mountain villages.
The applicant has observed that the devices of prior art have disadvantages when it is sought to use them for light RCVs, which are of reduced size, volume and weight. A disadvantage is that they do not allow for compacting that is sufficiently effective. Another disadvantage is that they are too heavy relative to the carrying capacity of the caisson. Indeed, during the designing of a light RCV, for example, of an RCV comprising a superstructure mounted on a standard chassis-cab designed for a GVWR of 7.5 or of 9 t, the weight of the superstructure must be reduced as much as possible in order to increase the carrying capacity of the caisson relative to the GVWR. This carrying capacity of the caisson depends, on the one hand, on its volume, and on the other hand, on the compacting capacity of the compacting system. The third factor that determines the sizing is the stability constraint of the RCV in all circumstances.